Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, assault in the first degree, two counts of assault in the fourth degree, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. During jury selection, fifty jurors were excused for cause. On Appellant’s appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Appellant was entitled to a new trial because of possible interaction between jurors and the murder victim’s mother. On remand, the trial court concluded that Appellant was not entitled to a new trial on this issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to strike one of the jurors for cause because she had three associations with Appellant, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the juror could not render a fair and impartial verdict. View "Sluss v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of sixty-seven counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor. The convictions arose from the discovery upon a forensic examination of partially downloaded child-pornography videos on Appellant’s personal computer and still images in an inaccessible cache on the computer. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the evidence related to the still images found in the thumbcache of Appellant’s computer was insufficient to sustain those convictions; but (2) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charges related to the videos. View "Crabtree v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of probation or parole for twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the victim had been previously exposed to allegedly pornographic material on the internet; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in granting the Commonwealth’s motion to strike a juror for cause over defense objection. View "Basham v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the admission of a state police detective’s testimony regarding Appellant’s invocation of his right to an attorney was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court did not err by refusing to allow Appellant’s forensic expert witness to sit with defense counsel during the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for an instruction on first-degree manslaughter based upon extreme emotional disturbance; and (4) Appellant was not entitled to a new penalty phase trial even though the sentencing protocols as provided for in Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.025(3) were not followed in this case, as this deviation from the statutory procedure did not affect the ultimate sentence or jeopardize Appellant’s right to due process of law. View "Spears v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of third-degree terroristic threatening, other firearm-related offenses, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that a Batson violation occurred as a result of one of the peremptory strikes made by the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) a Batson violation occurred when the prosecutor struck an African-American juror from the jury pool and failed to provide a cognizable race-neutral reason for striking the juror; and (2) therefore, the trial court’s overruling of Appellant’s Batson challenge was an abuse of discretion. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant was convicted of first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree fleeing or evading police, and second-degree burglary. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Appellant’s conviction for second-degree burglary, concluding that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on that charge; and (2) affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences. On remand, Appellant moved for a new penalty phase on the affirmed convictions, arguing that the sentencing evidence related to the now-reversed reversed burglary conviction necessarily tainted the jury’s consideration of sentencing for the other offenses. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Appellant in conformity with the original sentence on the remaining convictions. Appellant appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a new penalty phase. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant was barred from seeking amendment of his sentence because the trial court was bound by the Court’s mandate specifically affirming the sentences and because Appellant was not entitled to raise the issue of possible reversal of the burglary conviction because it was not raised in the initial appeal. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for killing her husband. Appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a recorded conversation between Appellant and a police detective in which Appellant was consistently silent in the face of accusatory questions. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the admission of the recording violated Appellant’s due process rights by using her silence against her, and the admission of the tape was not harmless error. View "Bartley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the second-degree rape of a twelve-year-old girl and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that a photograph of the victim lying in a hospital bed the day after she gave birth to Appellant’s child was improperly introduced at trial because the photograph was irrelevant to the case, highly prejudicial, and lacked any probative value. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photograph into evidence, and the error was not harmless. View "Hughes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual abuse and three counts of first degree sodomy of two victims, Sarah and Nicholas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error that occurred by the admission of hearsay testimony from two of the Commonwealth’s witnesses was not palpable; (2) there was not palpable error in the introduction evidence that Appellant argued was impermissible Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence; (3) Appellant was not unduly prejudiced by the testimonies of Sarah, Nicholas, and other witnesses; (4) any error in the the admission of a picture Nicholas drew in elementary school was not palpable; (5) the trial court did not violate Appellant’s right to a fair trial by failing to excuse a juror; and (6) Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "Tackett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was taken into custody after a warrantless search of his vehicle. Defendant was subsequently indicted for handgun- and drug-related offenses. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his vehicle. The court of appeals vacated the circuit court’s order suppressing the evidence, concluding (1) the Commonwealth’s appeal was timely filed; and (2) although the search was unlawful, the exclusionary rule did not require suppression because the police officer who searched Defendant’s car followed existing precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commonwealth’s notice of appeal was timely filed; and (2) the search in this case was unconstitutional under Arizona v. Gant and Rose v. Commonwealth, but because the search was conducted by an officer in objectively reasonable reliance on clearly established precedent, the exclusionary rule did not apply to exclude the contraband discovered in Defendant’s vehicle. View "Parker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law